[–] ADaniels 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
If CO2 is so "bad" to have go above 400ppm, then why is it commercial greenhouse growers increase the CO2 to 1600ppm for a bigger harvest? Riddle me that. As far as I can conjecture, CO2 isn't harmful unless it rises above 5 fucking thousand parts per million. FAKE NEWS. TURN BACK NOW.
[–] Psylent 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Humans are not plants... Try drinking fertilizer and see how you go... "But the plants love it ! " ..- tell them that in the emergency room...
You also show a lack of understanding as to why 400ppm is bad. It shows that we are on track to even higher temperature increases. At the current rate of growth in CO2, levels will hit 500 ppm within 50 years, putting us on track to reach temperature boosts of perhaps more than 3 degrees C (5.4°F) — a level that would cause bouts of extreme weather and sea level rise that would endanger global food supplies, cause disruptive mass migrations, and even destroy the Amazon rainforest through drought and fire.
Lol believe what you want, you know you breathe out CO2 and then plants breathe it in and send back out the oxygen you need right? pay your breathing tax. There have been fossilized ferns unearthed from underneath miles of ice @ the poles proving the earth was warm enough to support plant life at the North Pole millions of years BEFORE humans were even around..... so how are humans causing global warming!? THEY AREN'T! The sun is actually about to be at multiple solar minimums and we are gonna have a mini ice age not global warming.....
[–] derram 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
https://archive.is/qUYWF | https://files.catbox.moe/yfh9dl.png :
'"Our results show that Exxon has misled the public about climate change. '
'The external documents focused on doubt about climate science, while internal communications acknowledged the risks of human-caused global warming. '
'It did so, we have shown, by contributing quietly to climate science and loudly to raising doubts about it."'
'"On the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate change, our analysis supports the conclusions that it did," the study states. '
'The company has also made some internal documents public in the wake of the investigative reporting during the past two years. '
This has been an automated message.